I think the government is on track to outline concisely what it envisages in future legislation to give an Indigenous voice to parliament. The scare campaign of claiming its going to be an non-elected star chamber with powers of veto is patently wrong, but there are those who will push that line. Of greater concern than the rubbish argument of "star chamber" from the racists of the extreme right is those who will claim, "agreement in principle", but oppose on the grounds of "lack of detain", no matter what detail is provided them.

Nothing, other than total rejection, will satisfy the bigots and racists who say "NEVER!"

"I think the government is on track to outline concisely what it envisages in future legislation"

Albo has specifically said that he won't provide all the details because too much detail may kill support. FFS they haven't even decided whether the extra-Parliamentary group will be elected or appointed.

Those pre-emptively saying they support it are showing that they don't give a rat's about the details. They just want to virtue signal. A true citizen concerned about the possible detriment of the so-called Voice (let's call it a megaphone) would at the very least...at the very least...would wait for and demand all the details be released.

"The Prime Minister is worried too much detail will kill the prospects of a successful referendum. He's worried people will vote "no" if they merely "disagree with one out of 50" clauses put forward.

"We're not doing that", he says, "we're learning from history." " (from the ABC so it must be true)

Translation....he doesn't trust the people to do as they're told if he gives them too much detail.

It's the pseudo-Aborigines who as always will sabotage any intended good will !

It appears that the Coalition offers qualified support
for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament Plan as laid out
by the Prime Minister.

Julian Leeser, the Coalition spokesman for Indigenous
Australians has said - it's now up to the government to
explain to the people how a Voice to Parliament would operate.

Lester said he supported the move to enshrine a Voice in the
Constitution but wanted to see the detail of what the Voice
would look like.

What still needs to be worked out - Anthony Albanese wants
to add to the Constitution that Parliament would have the
power to decide the functions, composition and powers to
the Voice. The Voice would not be a 3rd chamber of the
parliament. The Voice would not supersede Parliament.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney said there would
be plenty more detail.

"It would be nuts for that not to happen!"

As our PM said:

"This isn't a body that is on top of parliament. It's
not even at the side of the parliament. It does not seek
to usurp the power of parliament."

"What it seeks to do is break with what I call the tyranny
of powerlessness that First Nations people have suffered from
(more than) 121 years of the Commonwealth making decisions in
Canberra without having respect and without having
consultation with First Nations People themselves."

"It's been over 14 years since then Prime Minister John Howard
promised Indigenous recognition in the Constitution and almost
5 years since First Nations explained what they want that to
look like in the Uluru Statement."

"Since then, understanding and awareness about the Voice to
Parliament has grown. A Voice to Parliament is workable, will
promote equality and can win a referendum. It is time for the
government to put the question to the people."

According to ABC's VoteCompass 73% of Australians support the
Voice. It has risen from 2019 - and will continue to rise.

Here's a link that's worth a read:

http://theconversation.com/creating-a-constitutional-voice-the-words-that-could-change-australia-187972

Will an Aboriginal Australian with 0.001% of Aboriginal ancestry be eligible to be the Voice?

It will leave to parliament all the decisions about
how it is comprised and operates.